Is Barebacking Becoming the Norm???

[woodlawn]

>"I realize that many who post here like to pretend that using

>a condom during intercourse eliminates the risk of exposing

>either party to HIV..."

 

>Can you be specific and identify the posters and their posts

>that cause you to come to this realization?

 

Sorry to disappoint you, but I can. We've had several rather acrimonious discussions on this message board of the question whether clients should be told whether a given escort is HIV positive. I remember one in particular between deej and Ad rian in which Ad kept insisting (correctly) that the risk to the client of intercourse with an HIV positive escort is still greater than the risk of intercourse with an HIV negative escort even though a condom is used in both cases. Deej kept insisting that if the client uses a condom in both cases there is no difference in risk, therefore there is no reason why the client needs to know the escort's HIV status.

[MiamiLooker]

>>"I realize that many who post here like to pretend that

>using

>>a condom during intercourse eliminates the risk of exposing

>>either party to HIV..."

>

>>Can you be specific and identify the posters and their posts

>>that cause you to come to this realization?

>

>Sorry to disappoint you, but I can. We've had several rather

>acrimonious discussions on this message board of the question

>whether clients should be told whether a given escort is HIV

>positive. I remember one in particular between deej and Ad

>rian in which Ad kept insisting (correctly) that the risk to

>the client of intercourse with an HIV positive escort is still

>greater than the risk of intercourse with an HIV negative

>escort even though a condom is used in both cases. Deej kept

>insisting that if the client uses a condom in both cases

>there is no difference in risk, therefore there is no reason

>why the client needs to know the escort's HIV status.

 

 

Your apology is accepted, however, there was no need for it.

[MiamiLooker]

AARFD

[Doug69]

>And yet, mysteriously, some of those cities -- San Francisco,

>for example -- that banned bathhouses still have HIV rates

>which are higher than those in cities that didn't ban their

>bathhouses.

 

I'm not interested in having a debate over whether bathhouses should have been closed - although, I must ask you, do you really doubt that the HIV transmission rate in SF and NYC would have been even higher had they remained opened?

 

The point here is that there are things (such as bathhouses) which can facilitate the transmission of HIV or other STDs even if they themselves aren't direct causes of transmissions. Obviously, nobody gets HIV or other STDs from sitting in front of their screens watching other guys bareback on a video; the argument, though, is that such activities "lead to" or "facilitate" transmission by encouraging others to do things that lead to transmission.

 

Exactly the same can be said for prostitution. All along, the only discussion here has not been about whether prostitution or bathhouses are wrong or bad. The only point is whether one can engage in such activities and, without dripping with rancid hypocrisy, hold themselves out as Crusaders for the Public Health and Gay Youth and attack bareback video producers on the ground that they jeopardize the public health and harm gay youth.

 

It has always been the case, and still is, that the surest way short of celibacy to avoid sexual transmission of HIV is through monogomy where both partners are HIV-negative. That is an indisputable medical fact.

 

Promiscuity unquestioanbly increases the risk of HIV, even if the promiscuity is always with a condom, because sex with an HIV-positive person is never risk-free. The more one has such sex, the higher the risk. Prostitution is all about promiscuity. Prostitutes are definitively promiscuous and their johns are, too (based on the quaint but true notion that, when it comes to STDs, one has sex not just with that person but with every person they've had sex with). In the case of having sex with prostitutes, that means sex with a lot of guys.

 

Prostitution is inextricably linked with promiscuity, and the only way one can deny that promiscuity brings with it a risk of HIV and other STDs is by ignoring medical facts. Prostitution clearly entails a higher risk of HIV, and that is why anyone who engages in it, promotes it, or encourages it plays a role in the spread of HIV and STDs.

 

None of this means it should be illegal or that it's wrong - just that anyone who does it has no business sermonizing against bareback video producers on the ground that *they*, the video producers, help spread HIV - even if such an idea were true, which it isn't.

[Doug69]

> I don't believe

>that even most AIDS educators go so far as to say that condom

>use completely eliminates the risk of exposure. But I do

>believe that most would still advise that they be used.

 

Do you also believe that "most AIDS educators" would advise that the safest way short of celibacy to avoid sexual transmission of HIV would be monogomy with another HIV-negative person, and that high levels of promiscuity with prostitutes increases your risk of HIV, even if done with condoms?

[woodlawn]

>>Neither of the above statements is true because both

>proceed

>>from a false premise -- that HIV spreads only through

>>barebacking.

 

>No, they proceed from a true premise, which is that HIV is

>spread PRIMARILY through barebacking. Do you seriously

>believe that condom failure, or oral sex, are even remotely as

>efficient as barebacking in the spread of HIV?

 

I didn't say that condom failure is as efficient as barebacking in spreading HIV. I merely said that barebacking is not the sole means of spreading HIV, and that any statement that depends on the premise that it is, as yours did, depends on a false premise.

 

>>What makes prostitution a public health concern is not only

>>the propensity of some prostitutes to engage in barebacking

>>but also the fact that their occupation requires them to

>have

>>a large number of sex partners.

 

>Don't look now, but there are plenty of gay men who aren't

>prostitutes who have a large number of sex partners.

 

I'm sure there are. But that doesn't change the fact that while some gay men are promiscuous and others are not, prostitutes are promiscuous as a matter of necessity. Unless a prostitute has a small number of extremely generous repeat clients, he has to have a substantial number of different clients in order to make money.

 

 

>In an

>age of chat rooms and websites devoted to sexual hookups, just

>about anyone who wants to can be promiscuous.

 

>And if anything

>the "risk group" that escorts are coming into contact is lower

>than the risk group people who hook up online for free comes

>into contact with, since a greater percentage of the former

>group are people who don't get laid much.

 

I have some problems with the above two statements. For one, they contradict each other. If we live in an age in which "just about anyone who wants to" can have many sex partners, how is it that the people escorts see "don't get laid much"? That doesn't make sense.

 

In fact, I don't think either of your statements is true. My impression is that while gay men who are young and attractive have little difficulty hooking up as often as they wish, most gay men don't belong in that category; I think chat rooms consist mostly of a large group of average-looking or older gay men most of whom are chasing (with little success) the same much smaller group of younger, attractive men.

 

Nor do I think it's necessarily true that escort clients are more likely to be people who don't get laid much. There are clients on this board who hire (or say they hire) very frequently. There are escorts on this board who say their clientele contains many repeats. I don't have or know of any empirical data on this issue one way or the other. If you do, let's see it. Otherwise, we are both just guessing.

 

Now which

>phenomenon do you think public health officials are more

>worried about -- barebacking chat rooms or non-barebacking

>escorts?

 

I think that is an incredibly silly question. I don't think you can find an epidemiologist who will say that prostitution is NOT a contributing factor in the spread of STD's. I don't think you can find one who will say that because some gay men who are not prostitutes engage in barebacking, we should ignore the risks posed by prostitutes who don't bareback. Thus, my original point: there is a certain irony in seeing people who support prostitution lecture others about behavior that poses a risk to public health.

[Doug69]

>Can you be specific and identify the posters and their posts

>that cause you to come to this realization?

 

I'll add to the example which woodlawn gave. Just look at the people in this thread (and the other thread from several weeks ago regarding bareback videos) who react with fury and bewilderment at the suggestion that there's a link between having sex with prostitutes and the risk of HIV.

 

If you begin with the premise that having sex with a condom is not risk-free for HIV transmission (an incontestable premise), then it necessarily follows that the more such sex you have (i.e., the more promiscuous you are), then the higher your chances are of getting HIV. Thus, sex with prostitutes (who, by definition, have sex with lots and lots of people) logically increases your risk of HIV transmission, since - as the old cute saying goes - when it comes to HIV, you are having sex not just with your partner, but with everyone they have had sex with, too.

 

The only way to deny that there's a link between prostitution and HIV - as so many here try to deny - is if you believe that sex with a condom is risk-free for HIV transmission. Beleiving such a myth is the ONLY way to assert that there's no link between prostitution and HIV.

 

So, if you want examples of people who believe (or want to pretend to believe) that this is so, just check out all the people here who insist that there's no connection between prostitution and HIV as long as condoms are used by both parties to the transaction.

[Doug69]

>Sure, but I must have missed the part where you actually

>examined the views you were citing. It sounded to me like you

>were suggesting that because the parents of 18-year-olds would

>disapprove of their sons becoming escorts that NCM was under

>some obligation to concern himself with that -- or that, at

>the very least, because he doesn't worry about what their

>parents might think, that he therefore shouldn't have an

>opinion about barebacking videos.

 

When it comes to the question of what is harmful to the mental and physical health of 18 year-old boys, I think that, as a general proposition, the views of their parents -- the ones who raised them and cared for them and love them, as contrasted with those who want to pay them for sex -- are instructive and should be consulted. I don't think these parental views are, by any means, dispositive or infallable; I just think that they can be instructive when trying to find out what can harm or help males of this age.

 

The fact that most parents, if not all, would vehemently prefer that their young sons watch bareback videos rather than be whored out on the Internet to 60-year-old men is relevant (not dispositive, but relevant) in trying to determine which of those two activities harms youth the most. Don't you?

 

>Well, that's interesting up to a point, and maybe even mildly

>ironic, but I'm sure parallel language can be used to condemn

>or praise all sorts of unrelated topics. That the language is

>similar doesn't really mean the two topics have much to bear

>upon one another.

 

I've explained in a couple other posts to you elsewhere in this thread why one cannot reasonably deny the link between HIV and prostitution/promiscuity even with condoms. I'll let you read that and respond to it there, if you choose.

 

>Well, I think whether there's a great likelihood of it being

>unhealthy or unfavorable depends on the individual 19-year-old

>(who is, of course, also an adult) and what kinds of other

>choices he pairs up with his decision to escort.

 

So you're not prepared to say that adults should refrain from counselling 19 year-old males to seek their livelihood from prostitution? It's too close of a call for you and/or too fact-dependent to be able to say, as a general matter, whether or not this is proper advice to be giving to males of this age?

 

>One can

>reasonably much more sweeping with regard to the subject of,

>say, barebacking videos, IF one takes the view that they

>inevitably CAUSE young people to bareback. I don't agree that

>they do, but I can still see that that's a very different

>proposition from suggesting that escorting is bad for young

>people.

 

There are many psychological and sociological studies which demonstrate that pornography which depicts abusive or even violent behavior towards women (such as slave videos or even rape videos) actually decreases the incidence of actual violence and abuse against women, because these videos provide those who harbor such impulses an outlet for these desires, thus obviating the need to go actually do it.

 

Although I've seen no studies on this topic one way or the other with regard to bareback videos, I would be very surprised if bareback videos don't operate similarly to allow people who fantasize about barebacking to get it out of their system by sitting at home jerking off to these videos rather than getting online and meeting someone to shoot cum up their ass. When you suppress something and make it unavailable, it has the effect of making it more alluring and making the desire for it that much more potent to the point of compulsion.

 

The mere fact that prostitution is good for someone here and there doesn't obviate the fact that it usually is not, nor does it obviate the clear link between it and HIV risk. It is a mighty bizarre sight, then, to see someone who does it masquerading themselves as a Youth Advocate or HIV Counselor.

[Argos]

Statistically, what are the chances of acquiring HIV when using a condom, assuming it doesn't break and is put on properly? How about acquiring HIV through oral sex as the receptive partner (I understand it is only a theoretical possibility.) It would seem to me that the risk is much lower than barebacking with an HIV+ partner. I have never been concerned about acquiring HIV when some guy sucked me off or I topped him using a condom.

 

When I initially posted this thread, I was not trying to blame the escort for letting me top him without a condom. That was my decision. The escort is not my babysitter, father or confessor. I made a conscious choice to expose myself to a risk, that exceeding my risk taking comfort level. However, what does concern me is the cavalier attitude that some sex workers take when it comes to acquiring HIV. I am not having sex with every Tom, Dick and Harry, but escorts are and they obviously have a much greater exposure to HIV than the average man. It is simply a reality of the trade.

 

The bathhouse and sex club scene is a totally different situation. I visited Slammers today in Los Angeles. The amount of unsafe sex that goes on there is absolutely unbelieveable, and after today, I have made a conscious decision not to return. There is not doubt in my mind that there is a much greater risk for acquiring HIV, or any other STD, at an establishment like Slammers than with the average escort.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>I didn't say that condom failure is as efficient as

>barebacking in spreading HIV. I merely said that barebacking

>is not the sole means of spreading HIV, and that any statement

>that depends on the premise that it is, as yours did, depends

>on a false premise.

 

Wrong again. I said that "escorts who are quite UNwilling to bareback represent far less of a public health concern than non-escorts who are quite willing to bareback." That statement in no way depends on the premise that barebacking is the sole means of spreading HIV. It depends on the premise that barebacking is a much more efficient means of spreading HIV than any other way.

 

>Unless a prostitute has a small number of extremely generous repeat

>clients, he has to have a substantial number of different

>clients in order to make money.

 

That depends on how much money he needs to make, doesn't it? If a college student needs a part-time job while he's in school and chooses escorting as that job, and sees one client each week for one hour at the rate of $200/hour, that means he's making as much as he'd make working 20 hours a week at $10/hour. That requires neither "a small number of extremely generous repeat clients" nor "a substantial number of different clients."

 

>If we live in an age in which

>"just about anyone who wants to" can have many sex partners,

>how is it that the people escorts see "don't get laid much"?

 

Well, let's see...many of them are married (remember? the ones you rail against for betraying their sacred vow to their wives?), inexperienced at gay sex, and/or extremely closeted and concerned about discretion. Do you really suppose that those same people are routinely hooking up on m4m chat rooms?

 

>> Now which

>>phenomenon do you think public health officials are more

>>worried about -- barebacking chat rooms or non-barebacking

>>escorts?

>

>I think that is an incredibly silly question. I don't think

>you can find an epidemiologist who will say that prostitution

>is NOT a contributing factor in the spread of STD's. I don't

>think you can find one who will say that because some gay men

>who are not prostitutes engage in barebacking, we should

>ignore the risks posed by prostitutes who don't bareback.

 

And I don't think you can find an epidemiologist who will say that escorts who don't bareback spread STDs at anywhere near the rate of non-escorts who do bareback. In all the many articles that have come out in the last couple years spreading the alarm about rising HIV rates, how many have even mentioned non-barebacking escorts as a significant factor? Don't just about all of them focus on barebacking?

 

>Thus, my original point: there is a certain irony in seeing

>people who support prostitution lecture others about behavior

>that poses a risk to public health.

 

This is like saying it's ironic for people who drive very frequently -- thereby increasing their likelihood of being in a car accident -- to express disapproval of drunk drivers. After all, both are more at risk of causing car accidents then people who don't drive at all.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>When it comes to the question of what is harmful to the mental

>and physical health of 18 year-old boys, I think that, as a

>general proposition, the views of their parents -- the ones

>who raised them and cared for them and love them, as

>contrasted with those who want to pay them for sex -- are

>instructive and should be consulted. I don't think these

>parental views are, by any means, dispositive or infallable; I

>just think that they can be instructive when trying to find

>out what can harm or help males of this age.

 

>The fact that most parents, if not all, would vehemently

>prefer that their young sons watch bareback videos rather than

>be whored out on the Internet to 60-year-old men is relevant

>(not dispositive, but relevant) in trying to determine which

>of those two activities harms youth the most. Don't you?

 

No, as a matter of fact I don't. My parents raised me, cared for me, and love me, but both now and when I was 18 their views on gay sexuality were anything but instructive and certainly did not deserve to be consulted. (They wanted to cure me of homosexuality altogether.) I've never met any gay man -- for that matter, ANY adult -- of any age who thought his parents' views about their sex lives were instructive and deserved to be consulted. One of the nicest things about turning 18 is that your parents no longer are entitled to any kind of say in your sex life. So I certainly don't expect NCM to track down another grown man's parents to get their feedback on his sex life.

 

>>Well, I think whether there's a great likelihood of it being

>>unhealthy or unfavorable depends on the individual

>19-year-old

>>(who is, of course, also an adult) and what kinds of other

>>choices he pairs up with his decision to escort.

 

>So you're not prepared to say that adults should refrain from

>counselling 19 year-old males to seek their livelihood from

>prostitution? It's too close of a call for you and/or too

>fact-dependent to be able to say, as a general matter, whether

>or not this is proper advice to be giving to males of this

>age?

 

It is most definitely too fact-dependent, because I don't think 19-year-olds are helpless infants, as you seem to, and I don't think escorting is automatically a bad choice for a 19-year-old anymore than I think it's automatically a good choice for a 30-year-old.

 

>There are many psychological and sociological studies which

>demonstrate that pornography which depicts abusive or even

>violent behavior towards women (such as slave videos or even

>rape videos) actually decreases the incidence of actual

>violence and abuse against women, because these videos provide

>those who harbor such impulses an outlet for these desires,

>thus obviating the need to go actually do it.

>

>Although I've seen no studies on this topic one way or the

>other with regard to bareback videos, I would be very

>surprised if bareback videos don't operate similarly to allow

>people who fantasize about barebacking to get it out of their

>system by sitting at home jerking off to these videos rather

>than getting online and meeting someone to shoot cum up their

>ass. When you suppress something and make it unavailable, it

>has the effect of making it more alluring and making the

>desire for it that much more potent to the point of

>compulsion.

 

This is a good point (with which I happen to agree), and better yet, it actually addresses the issue of whether barebacking videos cause barebacking rather than obsuring it with baseless and irrelevant charges of hypocrisy. This point, unlike your others, would still stand even if NCM only hired 35-year-old escorts and had taken his same exact position against barebacking videos. Better late than never.

[woodlawn]

>>I didn't say that condom failure is as efficient as

>>barebacking in spreading HIV. I merely said that

>barebacking

>>is not the sole means of spreading HIV, and that any

>statement

>>that depends on the premise that it is, as yours did,

>depends

>>on a false premise.

 

>Wrong again. I said that "escorts who are quite UNwilling to

>bareback represent far less of a public health concern than

>non-escorts who are quite willing to bareback."

 

But in the very next sentence you said "the relevant distinction is whether barebacking occurs" not the occupation of those involved. Now you choose to leave that out of your reply because it doesn't support your point. Too late.

 

 

>That depends on how much money he needs to make, doesn't it?

>If a college student needs a part-time job while he's in

>school and chooses escorting as that job, and sees one client

>each week for one hour at the rate of $200/hour, that means

>he's making as much as he'd make working 20 hours a week at

>$10/hour.

 

Right. But unless he has repeat customers he will be having more than fifty different sex partners a year -- not counting the ones he sees for personal rather than professional reasons. What percentage of American men have more than fifty different sex partners a year?

 

 

>>If we live in an age in which

>>"just about anyone who wants to" can have many sex partners,

>>how is it that the people escorts see "don't get laid much"?

 

 

>Well, let's see...many of them are married (remember? the

>ones you rail against for betraying their sacred vow to their

>wives?), inexperienced at gay sex, and/or extremely closeted

>and concerned about discretion.

 

But you just said that "just about anyone who wants to" can have many sex partners. Now you seem to be saying that there are plenty of people who want to but can't. Which is it?

 

Yes, I remember saying that married men who cheat on their wives with whores are breaking their vows. Do you disagree with that statement? Or is it that you think breaking a vow made to another person is unimportant?

 

> Do you really suppose that

>those same people are routinely hooking up on m4m chat rooms?

 

I think I just said that in my opinion not many of the people who hang out in chat rooms manage to hook up with anyone. You're the one who is trying to argue that prostitutes shouldn't be singled out as a public health problem because so many other gay men are promiscuous, not me, remember? Now you seem to be arguing against your own point.

 

 

>And I don't think you can find an epidemiologist who will say

>that escorts who don't bareback spread STDs at anywhere near

>the rate of non-escorts who do bareback.

 

So what? Does that mean that exposure to HIV by intercourse with a prostitute who doesn't bareback is somehow less serious than exposure by intercourse with someone else who does bareback?

 

 

>In all the many

>articles that have come out in the last couple years spreading

>the alarm about rising HIV rates, how many have even mentioned

>non-barebacking escorts as a significant factor? Don't just

>about all of them focus on barebacking?

 

Once again, so what? Can you find any article stating that prostitution is NOT a factor in spreading HIV? Try it.

 

>This is like saying it's ironic for people who drive very

>frequently -- thereby increasing their likelihood of being in

>a car accident -- to express disapproval of drunk drivers.

>After all, both are more at risk of causing car accidents then

>people who don't drive at all.

 

That's a false analogy. Because driving a lot doesn't mean that one is likely to CAUSE a car accident. While being promiscuous does increase the likelihood that one will TRANSMIT disease to others.

 

Your whole argument boils down to this: let's forget about the fact that prostitutes have played a role in spreading HIV because people who bareback may play an even greater role in doing so. Anyone who thinks that makes sense is free to think so. I don't.

[woodlawn]

>Statistically, what are the chances of acquiring HIV when

>using a condom, assuming it doesn't break and is put on

>properly?

 

I would think the chances are negligible in the situation you describe. But I have read about studies in various countries showing total failure rates for condoms (including both slippage and breakage during intercourse) of from 1% to 4.5%.

 

>I am not having

>sex with every Tom, Dick and Harry, but escorts are and they

>obviously have a much greater exposure to HIV than the average

>man. It is simply a reality of the trade.

 

I agree. I don't see how anyone could argue with that.

 

>There is not doubt in my mind that

>there is a much greater risk for acquiring HIV, or any other

>STD, at an establishment like Slammers than with the average

>escort.

 

I would think that is true. What I don't understand is why anyone would argue that because the former risk may be greater than the latter, that the latter risk should be ignored.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Your whole argument boils down to this: let's forget about

>the fact that prostitutes have played a role in spreading HIV

>because people who bareback may play an even greater role in

>doing so. Anyone who thinks that makes sense is free to think

>so. I don't.

 

Your whole argument boils down to this: no one who has ever engaged in any form of sexual activity as, or with, an escort, even if they didn't bareback, should dare to criticize barebacking, the riskiest sexual activity there is, because having protected sex with an escort isn't completely risk-free. Anyone who thinks that makes sense is free to think so. I don't.

[woodlawn]

>Your whole argument boils down to this: no one who has ever

>engaged in any form of sexual activity as, or with, an escort,

>even if they didn't bareback, should dare to criticize

>barebacking, the riskiest sexual activity there is, because

>having protected sex with an escort isn't completely

>risk-free.

 

"Having protected sex with an escort isn't completely risk-free." It certainly isn't. It involves a significant chance of being exposed or exposing others to a virus that causes a disease that is terminal and incurable. It is something that a person with a genuine concern for public health wouldn't consider doing.

 

>Anyone who thinks that makes sense is free to

>think so. I don't.

 

I'm sure you don't think that anything that could be construed as a criticism of the way you earn your living makes sense. As Keynes once said, it's difficult to get a man to understand something if his paycheck depends on not understanding it.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>"Having protected sex with an escort isn't completely

>risk-free." It certainly isn't. It involves a significant

>chance of being exposed or exposing others to a virus that

>causes a disease that is terminal and incurable. It is

>something that a person with a genuine concern for public

>health wouldn't consider doing.

 

Since you have repeatedly done much more than consider doing just that, I guess we can count you among the people who don't have a genuine concern for public health, can't we? And you have the nerve to call other people hypocrites.

[Doug69]

>Since you have repeatedly done much more than consider doing

>just that, I guess we can count you among the people who don't

>have a genuine concern for public health, can't we? And you

>have the nerve to call other people hypocrites.

 

Why are you having so much difficulty comprehending what is being discussed?

 

He isn't the one running around giving sermons on the evils and immorality of what others are doing. This entire discussion began when someone who hires and promotes very young prostitutes began screeching about the immorality and irresponsibility of bareback video producers. The issue then became whether a person who engages in prostitution can consistently sermonize against bareback videos.

 

Nobody has been preaching against prostitution or arguing that it is immoral or wrong - only that the criticisms of bareback videos made here are applicable to prostitution, making it incoherent for one who engages in one of these activities to preach against the other.

 

Given that nobody here (other than the anti-video preachers) is holding themselves out as the Beacon of Public Health and Morality, nor is anyone here (other than the anti-video preachers) labelling any activities "immoral" or "wrong," how could you possibly see hypocrisy where you claim to have seen it? One is "hypocritical" only if one argues that a particular activity is wrong and evil and immoral even if one engages in that same activity or one indistinguishable from it. Other than the anti-video Priests, who is doing that?

 

Finally, can you at least acknowledge that your self-evident, overwhelming personal interest in believing that prostitution is great for the soul may have an effect on your ability to think clearly or reasonably with regard to this subject matter?

[woodlawn]

>>Since you have repeatedly done much more than consider

>doing

>>just that, I guess we can count you among the people who

>don't

>>have a genuine concern for public health, can't we? And you

>>have the nerve to call other people hypocrites.

 

>Why are you having so much difficulty comprehending what is

>being discussed?

 

He's having difficulty comprehending it for the reason I gave above: it's hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on NOT understanding it.

 

 

>He isn't the one running around giving sermons on the evils

>and immorality of what others are doing. This entire

>discussion began when someone who hires and promotes very

>young prostitutes began screeching about the immorality and

>irresponsibility of bareback video producers. The issue then

>became whether a person who engages in prostitution can

>consistently sermonize against bareback videos.

>

>Nobody has been preaching against prostitution or

>arguing that it is immoral or wrong - only that the criticisms

>of bareback videos made here are applicable to prostitution,

>making it incoherent for one who engages in one of these

>activities to preach against the other.

 

That is exactly right.

 

>Finally, can you at least acknowledge that your self-evident,

>overwhelming personal interest in believing that prostitution

>is great for the soul may have an effect on your ability to

>think clearly or reasonably with regard to this subject

>matter?

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for that character to admit that his self-serving statements are in fact self-serving. We are supposed to believe it's sheer coincidence that someone who benefits personally from prostitution constantly cuts down anyone on this board who says anything that might be interpreted as a criticism of prostitution.

[duke37]

>Don't hold your breath waiting for that character to admit

>that his self-serving statements are in fact self-serving. We

>are supposed to believe it's sheer coincidence that someone

>who benefits personally from prostitution constantly cuts down

>anyone on this board who says anything that might be

>interpreted as a criticism of prostitution.

>

>

 

 

How do we know that you and/or doug69 don't benefit somehow from barebacking or the manufacture of barebacking videos? As you have pointed out before we don't know anything about you and never will. I can evaluate how self-serving Devon's statements are but I have no way of evaluating yours.

 

Jeff

[woodlawn]

>>Don't hold your breath waiting for that character to admit

>>that his self-serving statements are in fact self-serving.

>We

>>are supposed to believe it's sheer coincidence that someone

>>who benefits personally from prostitution constantly cuts

>down

>>anyone on this board who says anything that might be

>>interpreted as a criticism of prostitution.

 

>How do we know that you and/or doug69 don't benefit somehow

>from barebacking or the manufacture of barebacking videos?

 

You don't. But I have not denied that barebacking represents a significant public health problem. And my posts in the first thread in which ncm complained about Aaron's actions consistently take the position that people CAN be influenced by what they see in videos and that those who create barebacking videos DO need to take responsibility for encouraging such behavior. Go back and read them yourself if you don't believe me.

 

>As

>you have pointed out before we don't know anything about you

>and never will. I can evaluate how self-serving Devon's

>statements are but I have no way of evaluating yours.

 

I have stated that I do not post personal information here. I have also created a number of posts referring to my experiences with hiring. And yet no one who reads my posts can accuse me of taking positions that simply rationalize my own actions in this regard, as so many people here do. Some of my posts advocate for those of us who are consumers in this business. But I don't shy away from discussing reasons why people should NOT be consumers in this business, as you can see in this thread.

 

As I recently told Axebahia, while many people are incapable of seeing issues and events from any perspective other than that of their own selfish interest, that's not true of everyone. There are billionaires who oppose tax cuts for the rich. There are men who support feminism. There are Republicans who oppose the California recall election. Part of growing up is being able to focus on other things besides the gratification of one's own immediate desires and look at issues from points of view other than one's own. Try it sometime.

[duke37]

Part

>of growing up is being able to focus on other things besides

>the gratification of one's own immediate desires and look at

>issues from points of view other than one's own. Try it

>sometime.

>

 

Thank you for your response.

 

I'll try that focusing on things other than my own gratification that you suggested. I'll let you know how it goes. Does reading 90 some posts on the topic of barebacking (a practice in which I don't engage) qualify?.

 

 

Jeff

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>He isn't the one running around giving sermons on the evils

>and immorality of what others are doing.

 

Please. The overwhelming majority of his posts are sermons on the evils and immorality of what others are doing.

 

>Nobody has been preaching against prostitution or

>arguing that it is immoral or wrong

 

...with the obvious exception of woodlawn, who manages work that theme into practically every post he writes. I suppose you'll both deny what is self-evident by demanding that I produce a quote that uses the exact words "immoral" or "wrong," (not that YOU can produce any quotes in which NCM refers to himself as "the Beacon of Public Health and Morality") but you only need a passing familiarity with his posting history to notice that he is deeply disturbed by what he is doing and is on a never-ending mission to convince others of just how dirty and evil hiring escorts is.

 

>One is "hypocritical" only if one argues that a

>particular activity is wrong and evil and immoral even if one

>engages in that same activity or one indistinguishable from

>it. Other than the anti-video Priests, who is doing that?

 

Woodlawn.

 

>Finally, can you at least acknowledge that your self-evident,

>overwhelming personal interest in believing that prostitution

>is great for the soul may have an effect on your ability to

>think clearly or reasonably with regard to this subject

>matter?

 

I'll happily acknowledge that I enjoy my profession and don't think it has done my own soul any damage, but I've said many times that for many it is a disastrous career choice. I've never claimed to agree with how all escort conduct their businesses, and I've repeatedly said that hiring escorts isn't a good idea for everybody. If you find those positions unclear or unreasonable, so be it.

[Doug69]

>Please. The overwhelming majority of his posts are sermons on

>the evils and immorality of what others are doing.

 

This is just not so, as least with regard to what I've read. Permit me, if you will, to share you with my thoughts on this issue:

 

This is a forum comprised of prostitutes and those who hire them and/or those who are interested in reading about their services. As a result, one would expect to find this forum filled mostly with people who have a "live-and-let-live," libertarian attitude with regard to matters of private sexuality.

 

After all, prostitution is illegal in every state in this country, and has been resoundingly condemned on numerous grounds - moral, religious, ethical, health, family - for centuries. Those who are so open and accepting of prostitution are a small minority, and those who are so enthusiastic about it that they participate in a forum like this are even a smaller minority.

 

In order to believe in the virtues of prostitution and to believe that it should be endorsed, it would be expected that one would have a rather laiszze-faire, libertarian view of moral questions in the sexual realm. One would expect to find people here who believe that adults have the right to gratify themselves however they see fit, and ought not be constrained by things like moral condemnation or family and health constraints when pursuing sexual gratification. That, after all, is what prostitution is all about.

 

And yet, remarkably, and fascinatingly (it's why I find coming here so entertaining), one finds exactly the opposite. In this forum, one finds more frequent sermonizing, moral condemnation, and declarations of sinful behavior than one would find in a Baptist Church on Sunday morning. The people here have created an incredibly complex and righteous moral code surrounding "proper behaviors" when it comes to prostitution and virtually every other sexual matter, and whenever sexual behavior which they don't like is discussed, you feel like you're in a room with a bunch of mini-Pat Robertson clones providing running commentary on an orgy. The fire and brimstone that pours down is a sight to behold.

 

In order to illustrate the senselessness and incoherence of such moral condemnations being spewed by practitioners of prostitution and being spewed in this forum , woodlawn sometimes points out, as have I, that the identical arguments being advanced as to why Bad Activity X is so awful are equally applicable (at least) to the prostitution transactions which these sermonizers so love. In doing so, it is necessary to set forth the attributes of prostitution - i.e., the ones which render them indistinguishable from the Sinful Behavior De Jour - so that this equivalence can be seen.

 

At least insofar as I've seen, woodlawn's point is never that prostitution is bad and immoral and dirty and evil and should be banned. Rather, it's that the same things which these Lecturers say about whatever their target happens to be applies equally to prostitution.

 

This is not a complex or difficult-to-understand distinction. And I've seen your diary and your postings here and know that you are not stupid. That is why I genuinely believe - and I say this not to be insulting or to degrade your contributions, but because I think it's the only thing that explains your refusal to acknowledge this distinction - that you are very sensitive, given what you do, to anything that smacks of condemnations of escorting, and so when woodlawn makes this argument, you only see one side of the equation ("Prostition is x, y and z") and don't see the other side of it ("and so, too, is the activity you are relentlessly condemning, so how can you, as a prostitute or john, condemn it?").

 

I have no interest in defending woodlawn; he can do that himself. I'm just amazed at: (a) how many people refuse to see what seems to be to be painfully self-evident; and (b) how relentlessly people will pretend that they don't even understand the point because they have no answer to it, and so will pretend that the point is a different one than is actually being made.

 

 

>

>>Nobody has been preaching against prostitution or

>>arguing that it is immoral or wrong

>

>...with the obvious exception of woodlawn, who manages work

>that theme into practically every post he writes. I suppose

>you'll both deny what is self-evident by demanding that I

>produce a quote that uses the exact words "immoral" or

>"wrong," (not that YOU can produce any quotes in which NCM

>refers to himself as "the Beacon of Public Health and

>Morality") but you only need a passing familiarity with his

>posting history to notice that he is deeply disturbed by what

>he is doing and is on a never-ending mission to convince

>others of just how dirty and evil hiring escorts is.

>

>>One is "hypocritical" only if one argues that a

>>particular activity is wrong and evil and immoral even if

>one

>>engages in that same activity or one indistinguishable from

>>it. Other than the anti-video Priests, who is doing that?

>

>Woodlawn.

>

>>Finally, can you at least acknowledge that your

>self-evident,

>>overwhelming personal interest in believing that

>prostitution

>>is great for the soul may have an effect on your ability to

>>think clearly or reasonably with regard to this subject

>>matter?

>

>I'll happily acknowledge that I enjoy my profession and don't

>think it has done my own soul any damage, but I've said many

>times that for many it is a disastrous career choice. I've

>never claimed to agree with how all escort conduct their

>businesses, and I've repeatedly said that hiring escorts isn't

>a good idea for everybody. If you find those positions

>unclear or unreasonable, so be it.

[woodlawn]

>And yet, remarkably, and fascinatingly (it's why I find coming

>here so entertaining), one finds exactly the opposite.

>In this forum, one finds more frequent sermonizing, moral

>condemnation, and declarations of sinful behavior than one

>would find in a Baptist Church on Sunday morning. The people

>here have created an incredibly complex and righteous moral

>code surrounding "proper behaviors" when it comes to

>prostitution and virtually every other sexual matter, and

>whenever sexual behavior which they don't like is discussed,

>you feel like you're in a room with a bunch of mini-Pat

>Robertson clones providing running commentary on an orgy.

 

 

That's very well put. As I've said time and again, how could anyone who enjoys irony possibly resist this place?

 

 

>At least insofar as I've seen, woodlawn's point is never that

>prostitution is bad and immoral and dirty and evil and should

>be banned. Rather, it's that the same things which these

>Lecturers say about whatever their target happens to be

>applies equally to prostitution.

>

>This is not a complex or difficult-to-understand distinction.

 

 

No it isn't, is it? You'd think anyone of at least average intelligence would be able to get it.

 

 

>I have no interest in defending woodlawn; he can do that

>himself. I'm just amazed at: (a) how many people refuse to

>see what seems to be to be painfully self-evident; and (b) how

>relentlessly people will pretend that they don't even

>understand the point because they have no answer to it, and so

>will pretend that the point is a different one than is

>actually being made.

 

My theory is that the kind of remarks you're responding to in this post are made by escorts and others for one of two reasons. One is that they themselves actually believe that prostitution is dirty and immoral. For this reason, they imagine that I or others are attacking them with such accusations even when no such accusations have been made. They are like the character in "Crime and Punishment" whose feelings of guilt make him imagine that others are looking at him with suspicion even though in truth they are not. I suppose "sensitive" is one way to describe the feelings these people have about what they're doing.

 

Of course they can't bear to acknowledge even to themselves that they have negative feelings about what they are doing. In the "therapeutic culture" to which many on the Left have signed on, it isn't behaving selfishly or deceitfully that is thought to be wrong, since behavior like that can always be explained by the terrible things done to one by society or one's parents. Instead, the cardinal sin is being "unhappy." You must have seen how some posters here actually use that as an accusation against people they dislike: "He isn't happy," seems to them a worse thing to say about another person than "He lied and cheated."

 

The other reason is, as you point out, simple dishonesty. They can't think of any way to respond to what one has actually said, so they make up something to which they CAN respond and they reply to that instead. Acknowledging that there is actually some merit in a position that does not reflect credit on their own conduct is, of course, quite out of the question. Anything is preferable to that.

 

Truly, we live in a degraded age.

 

[Guest ncm2169]

< And my posts in the first thread in which ncm complained about Aaron's actions consistently take the position that people CAN be influenced by what they see in videos and that those who create barebacking videos DO need to take responsibility for encouraging such behavior. >

 

Thank you, Woodlawn. Glad to see we agree on something. :o